Browsing by Author "Wilson, Joshua"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Integrating goal-setting and automated feedback to improve writing outcomes: a pilot study(Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 2022-05-17) Wilson, Joshua; Potter, Andrew; Cruz Cordero, Tania; Myers, Matthew C.Purpose: This study presents results from a pilot intervention that integrated self-regulation through reflection and goal setting with automated writing evaluation (AWE) technology to improve students’ writing outcomes. Methods: We employed a single-group pretest-posttest design. All students in Grades 5–8 (N = 56) from one urban, all female, public-charter middle school completed pretest and posttest measures of writing beliefs and writing performance. In between pretest and posttest, students completed monthly goal-setting activities via a Qualtrics survey and monthly persuasive writing practice via prompts completed within an AWE system. Findings: Students improved their self-regulation as indicated by improved goal calibration and confidence to achieve their goals over time. They also improved their self-efficacy for writing self-regulation and writing performance between pre and posttest. Students also perceived the intervention to be usable, useful, and desirable. Originality: This is a unique study because we integrated AWE and goal-setting instruction, which has not previously been done. Positive findings indicate the promise of this innovative, feasible, and scalable technology-based writing intervention.Item Investigating the promise of automated writing evaluation for supporting formative writing assessment at scale(Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2022-01-23) Wilson, Joshua; Myers, Matthew C.; Potter, AndrewWe investigated the promise of a novel approach to formative writing assessment at scale that involved an automated writing evaluation (AWE) system called MI Write. Specifically, we investigated elementary teachers’ perceptions and implementation of MI Write and changes in students’ writing performance in three genres from Fall to Spring associated with this implementation. Teachers in Grades 3–5 (n = 14) reported that MI Write was usable and acceptable, useful, and desirable; however, teachers tended to implement MI Write in a limited manner. Multilevel repeated measures analyses indicated that students in Grades 3–5 (n = 570) tended not to increase their performance from Fall to Spring except for third graders in all genres and fourth graders’ narrative writing. Findings illustrate the importance of educators utilising scalable formative assessments to evaluate and adjust core instruction.Item Predictors of middle school students’ perceptions of automated writing evaluation(Computers & Education, 2023-12-29) Wilson, Joshua; Zhang, Fan; Palermo, Corey; Cordero,Tania Cruz; Myers, Matthew C.; Eacker, Halley; Potter, Andrew; Coles, JessicaThis study examined middle school students' perceptions of an automated writing evaluation (AWE) system, MI Write. We summarize students' perceptions of MI Write's usability, usefulness, and desirability both quantitatively and qualitatively. We then estimate hierarchical entry regression models that account for district context, classroom climate, demographic factors (i.e., gender, special education status, limited English proficiency status, socioeconomic status, grade), students' writing-related beliefs and affect, and students' writing proficiency as predictors of students' perceptions. Controlling for districts, students reporting more optimal classroom climate also reported higher usability, usefulness, and desirability for MI Write. Also, model results revealed that eighth graders, students with limited English proficiency, and students of lower socioeconomic status perceived MI Write relatively more useable; students with lower socioeconomic status also perceived MI Write relatively more useful and desirable. Students who liked writing more and more strongly believed that writing is a recursive process viewed MI Write as more useable, useful, and desirable. Students with greater writing proficiency viewed MI Write as less useable and useful; writing proficiency was not related to desirability perceptions. We conclude with a discussion of implications and future directions. Highlights • We study middle school students' perceptions of an AWE system called MI Write. • Students with LEP and lower SES perceived MI Write more useable/useful. • So too did students who liked writing and believed that revising was important. • Less proficient writers more strongly agreed that MI Write was useable and useful.Item Student engagement with teacher and automated written corrective feedback on L2 writing: A multiple case study(The JALT CALL Journal, 2023-01-01) Afifi, Sara; Rahimi, Mohammad; Wilson, JoshuaThe present multiple-case study, based on the multi-dimensional perspective on student engagement with Corrective Feedback (CF) proposed by Ellis (2010), set out to scrutinize students’ behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) provided by two different sources: teacher WCF and automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Writing Mentor. To this end, four Iranian EFL learners – two limited proficient and two modestly proficient writers – were selected purposefully from two sections of an academic writing course, one providing teacher WCF and the other AWCF. Participants in both sections wrote five argumentative essays during an academic term, received feedback on grammar, usage, and mechanics, and made revisions. The results demonstrated that the participants had different engagement levels and were categorized as highly engaged, moderately engaged, and minimally engaged students. In section 1, both participants who received teacher WCF were behaviorally and cognitively engaged with the feedback; however, one participant spent more time, used more resources, and showed more revision acts. Regardless of their behavioral and cognitive engagement level, they both demonstrated deep affective engagement with teacher feedback. In section 2, while one participant who received AWCF demonstrated deep and active engagement in all three dimensions, the other participant was reluctant to respond to the feedback and demonstrated a minimal level of engagement. Findings indicate that students’ engagement with WCF, whether provided by a teacher or automated writing evaluation system, is influenced by students’ beliefs and attitudes toward feedback and the sources of that feedback. Students’ writing proficiency was not clearly or consistently related to their degree of feedback engagement.Item Writing motivation and ability profiles and transition during a technology-based writing intervention(Frontiers in Psychology, 2023-06-21) Cruz Cordero, Tania; Wilson, Joshua; Myers, Matthew C.; Palermo, Corey; Eacker, Halley; Potter, Andrew; Coles, JessicaStudents exhibit heterogeneity in writing motivation and ability. Profiles based on measures of motivation and ability might help to describe this heterogeneity and better understand the effects of interventions aimed at improving students’ writing outcomes. We aimed to identify writing motivation and ability profiles in U.S. middle-school students participating in an automated writing evaluation (AWE) intervention using MI Write, and to identify transition paths between profiles as a result of the intervention. We identified profiles and transition paths of 2,487 students using latent profile and latent transition analysis. Four motivation and ability profiles emerged from a latent transition analysis with self-reported writing self-efficacy, attitudes toward writing, and a measure of writing writing: Low, Low/Mid, Mid/High, and High. Most students started the school year in the Low/Mid (38%) and Mid/High (30%) profiles. Only 11% of students started the school year in the High profile. Between 50 and 70% of students maintained the same profile in the Spring. Approximately 30% of students were likely to move one profile higher in the Spring. Fewer than 1% of students exhibited steeper transitions (e.g., from High to Low profile). Random assignment to treatment did not significantly influence transition paths. Likewise, gender, being a member of a priority population, or receiving special education services did not significantly influence transition paths. Results provide a promising profiling strategy focused on students’ attitudes, motivations, and ability and show students’ likeliness to belong to each profile based on their demographic characteristics. Finally, despite previous research indicating positive effects of AWE on writing motivation, results indicate that simply providing access to AWE in schools serving priority populations is insufficient to produce meaningful changes in students’ writing motivation profiles or writing outcomes. Therefore, interventions targeting writing motivation, in conjunction with AWE, could improve results.